Teaching others about the "burning in the bosom"

[spamlds]

There has been an unfortunate trend among sectarian Christians to disparage Mormonism's belief in the manifestation of the Spirit we call the "burning in the bosom." This phrase is taken from Doctrine and Covenants 9:8 where the Lord taught Oliver Cowdery how to recognize this manifestation of a spiritual witness.

"But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right."

I have encountered anti-Mormon web sites where evangelical Christians have ridiculed this particular manifestation, encouraging those who investigate the Church to place no confidence in this sensation. When sharing your understanding of it with other Christians, it might be useful to have knowledge of a couple of passages from Jonathan Edwards' "Personal Narrative." Edwards, who lived before the Restoration occurred (1703-1758) was one of the most important American Protestant theologians. His sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is credited with starting the first Great Awakening. Edwards theology is staunchly Calvinist in nature. Yet his doctrine still resonates with evangelicals today. That's why I think it is important to know and use these passages from his narrative. Here they are:

"The sense I had of divine things, would often of a sudden kindle up, as it were a sweet burning in my heart; an ardor of soul, that I know not how to express....

"...[T]here came into my mind so sweet a sense of the glorious majesty and grace of God, that I know not how to express. I seemed to see them both in a sweet conjunction; majesty and meekness joined together; it was a gentle and holy majesty; and also a majestic meekness; a high, great, and holy gentleness (Edwards).

"...[E}very word seemed to touch my heart. I felt a harmony between something in my heart and those sweet and powerful words...."

"Somtimes, only mentioning a single word caused my heart to burn within me; or only seeing the name of Christ, or the name of some attribute of God" (Edwards)."

Conversion happens when an investigator recognizes the testimony of the Holy Ghost. The great Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards knew and recognized this special feeling and he described it as good as any person ever has. When other Christians realize that this same holy feeling that many of them have experienced can testify of the Restoration, they may be more willing to rely upon it and accept the glorious principles that have been revealed in the latter-days. I think Jonathan Edwards would have recognized the movements of the Spirit and embraced the Restoration, had he lived long enough to see it.

Edited November 16, 2011 by spamlds
fixed punctuation

[Guest]

. . . and it's not at all the same thing as in Enna Burning. :)

Another manifestation of it for me is a very sweet peace. If other Christians want to mock and ridicule my trust in that, I guess that's their business, but it certainly doesn't make me inclined to listen to any more of their opinions. How do other Christians "know" that what they believe holds any truth? I know that most say they don't believe in personal revelation, but how do they gain their confidence of the truth of the Bible, for instance?

[beefche]

A similar phrase is in Luke 24:

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

[PrinceofLight2000]

I don't understand how any non-judgmental person, let alone a self-proclaimed Christian, could give credence to mockery of any individual's personal communication with the Spirit.

I personally don't get the whole burning in the bosom thing. When I feel the Spirit, I get chills.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think that particular D&C passage, while straightforward, leads us to expect an almost physical "burning" sensation that isn't necessarily how the Spirit manifests itself to all people. (I know that isn't how it manifests itself to me.) While not as elegantly simple, I prefer Galatians 5:22-23 and D&C 50:17-24, as well as the following from the King Follett discourse:

This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to my by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given my by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more.

The thing is, when we preach the gospel to an investigator--this isn't likely to be the first time they've ever felt the Holy Spirit. What ought to happen (IMHO) is that the missionary should help the investigator to identify other times in his life when he's confident God was talking to him (or, at least, that he was being inspired by some higher power), and then help the investigator to determine whether that same sense of enlightenment and understanding is present as he hears the missionary's message.

[spamlds]

I also like Edward's description of it as a

"...gentle and holy majesty; and also a majestic meekness; a high, great, and holy gentleness..."

Very poetic, expressed in very exquisite language that does justice to the sentiment.

[Mute]

Do not take this as an insult as it is not meant to be.

The "burning in the bosom" is something I've wondered about quite a bit. I have talked to many others of various christian faiths and they do not use this feeling of the "spirit" as a reason for why they believe or "know" they are right. However, I have asked many lds what this feeling feels like and I have not received a consistent answer. Many lds have described this feeling so very differently to me and many even say it is different for everyone. If this is true, I do not see how one could test if what they are feeling is even the holy ghost or anything other than ones own self feelings. You would have nothing to compare it to if everyone around you is experiencing something so differently and interpreting it to be the spirit. How would you know if what you are feeling is the spirit and not just a feeling? I have felt good feelings while reading scriptures (as well as bad ones). I have also felt good feelings (very similar if not the same to that which I had from anything I ever read in scriptures) while watching a movie, listening to music, reading a book, writing, thinking, being around people with a positive atmosphere and uplifting situations, remembering a loving memory and experiencing pleasant weather outside etc.

I'm not against the possibility of a feeling being a form of communication from a God. Honestly, it's the best answer I've heard as a possibility for communicating with a God. However, if this feeling is indeed real and from a God, I do not believe the vast majority of people who say they have felt it have felt it or at least that they do not understand it. Not well enough to say they know it because of it. I have heard people say God communicates to each person differently. While I feel if there is a God, he may communicate personal things to each person's life but I believe the way in which he would do it would be the same. I do not see how such a feeling could be soo inconsistent. I feel it would have to be consistent for all.

Take for example a magic eye book. This is a book where a person stares at it and sees a 3D picture. If everyone who stared at such a book and saw something different, would this not make you wonder if there was any picture there at all or if what you were seeing or thought you were seeing was what the picture even was of or if there was even a 3D picture there? But lets say everyone around you was seeing a very similar picture. This would be strong evidence that there was something there but I still do not believe this would be evidence enough to say you know. I feel many people who tell me they know the lds faith is true because of the spirit, are using the word know instead of the word believe. I say this because of the body language in which they say it and also because of the inconsistencies in the way it is described. Many people who have told me face to face that they know the lds faith is true, to me sound as though they are trying to convince themselves more than me. I wish if someone only believed they would only say it. I mean it is ok to say there is a real feeling and say you know you had a feeling but for one to say they know, I guess I see it very similar to one telling me they know Middle Earth is real because they had a feeling.

[Dravin]

I have heard people say God communicates to each person differently. While I feel if there is a God, he may communicate personal things to each person's life but I believe the way in which he would do it would be the same.

If indeed that is how he operates, that the nuances of method, reactions, and perception of any communication with God must be the same we have a problem more significant than someone describing chills and one a burning in the bosom. Consider Moses and the burning bush. Why doesn't God speak to all of us via a burning bush? It's the difference between one person describing cilantro as fresh, green, herby and sharp, another describing it as pungent and chemical, almost soap like, and someone saying it tastes like bananas foster. Edited November 18, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

It also occurred to me today that sometimes the Spirit's voice hasn't given me warm fuzzies. I've had very clear warnings and admonitions that, while not "positive", still came with feelings of enlightenment and clarity. I was still being schooled in truth, but the type that is telling you to absolutely change course, or suffer the consequences. In hindsight, not listening would have been catastrophic in at least 2 of those instances. It really is hard to describe how to recognize the Spirit, because like any other being, His communication might be of a different sort every time.

[spamlds]

It also occurred to me today that sometimes the Spirit's voice hasn't given me warm fuzzies. I've had very clear warnings and admonitions that, while not "positive", still came with feelings of enlightenment and clarity. I was still being schooled in truth, but the type that is telling you to absolutely change course, or suffer the consequences. In hindsight, not listening would have been catastrophic in at least 2 of those instances. It really is hard to describe how to recognize the Spirit, because like any other being, His communication might be of a different sort every time.

Indeed, that is the whole test of life, to see if we can sort out that "signal" through the static of our own thoughts, Satan's temptations, and worldly distractions. It requires a great deal of attention, preparation, and devotion.

There is a mistaken notion that the "signal" gets stronger over time or that someone, due to their calling or position in the Church, is entitled to stronger "signals" than anyone else. I've found that this is not the case. Someone once said that, even in the highest councils of the Church, the still, small voice is still the still, small voice.

I spent several years as a linguist/voice processing specialist working for Air Force intelligence. The more experienced guys could pick out the most distant, remote, faint signals out of the static, while the novices just hear static. When I first started in the field, I'd think, "There's no way they heard that!" Then with time and experience, I found I could do the same thing. Understanding and interpreting the Spirit's voice is much the same way. It comes to us in thoughts and feelings that are distinctive, but we have to learn to recognize them. It's easy to mistake them for normal day-to-day mind clutter. If it was easy, life wouldn't be the test that it's meant to be.

[prisonchaplain]

My sense is that the "burning in the bosom" or "confirmation of the Holy Spirit" (to use pentecostal/charismatic wording) could CONFIRM a change I already believed to be necessary. However, where the use gets criticized is in the idea that it could trump the biblical witness. Of course, LDS do not believe that the promise contradicts scripture at all. However, those websites the OP mentions, do see disagreement with what they consider to be "sound doctrine." So, for them, that the Spirit could cause someone to feel that incorrect teaching was true seems absurd.

[beefche]

prison, what is the biblical witness?

[Guest]

Do not take this as an insult as it is not meant to be.

The "burning in the bosom" is something I've wondered about quite a bit. I have talked to many others of various christian faiths and they do not use this feeling of the "spirit" as a reason for why they believe or "know" they are right.

On the contrary, a lot of my non-Catholic-non-Mormon friends do tell me that's how they came to join their church. It's a common mantra in the International Church of Christ as well as the Baptists and Born Again Christians.

However, I have asked many lds what this feeling feels like and I have not received a consistent answer. Many lds have described this feeling so very differently to me and many even say it is different for everyone. If this is true, I do not see how one could test if what they are feeling is even the holy ghost or anything other than ones own self feelings. You would have nothing to compare it to if everyone around you is experiencing something so differently and interpreting it to be the spirit. How would you know if what you are feeling is the spirit and not just a feeling? I have felt good feelings while reading scriptures (as well as bad ones). I have also felt good feelings (very similar if not the same to that which I had from anything I ever read in scriptures) while watching a movie, listening to music, reading a book, writing, thinking, being around people with a positive atmosphere and uplifting situations, remembering a loving memory and experiencing pleasant weather outside etc.

The common misconception among us is the exepctation that this Spirit must be something really majestic or different or even miraculous for it to be the Spirit...

Everybody is born with the Light of Christ. Therefore, everybody is born with this voice of the Spirit speaking to us. One's own self feelings can easily be the Spirit's influence. The feeling of pure peace, rightness, and just general good feelings. The thing is, a lot of us are adled by justifications to force rightness, cloudy judgements from alcohol or drugs, and even just the feeling of being right out of hate/envy/jealousy/victim-mentality/selfishness. Those things make our feelings impure and tend to mimic the pure voice of the Spirit within us. It is then when we shed all those things, when we examine ourselves out of love that we can reconnect with that pure peace that is of God.

I'm not against the possibility of a feeling being a form of communication from a God. Honestly, it's the best answer I've heard as a possibility for communicating with a God. However, if this feeling is indeed real and from a God, I do not believe the vast majority of people who say they have felt it have felt it or at least that they do not understand it. Not well enough to say they know it because of it. I have heard people say God communicates to each person differently. While I feel if there is a God, he may communicate personal things to each person's life but I believe the way in which he would do it would be the same. I do not see how such a feeling could be soo inconsistent. I feel it would have to be consistent for all.

Take for example a magic eye book. This is a book where a person stares at it and sees a 3D picture. If everyone who stared at such a book and saw something different, would this not make you wonder if there was any picture there at all or if what you were seeing or thought you were seeing was what the picture even was of or if there was even a 3D picture there? But lets say everyone around you was seeing a very similar picture. This would be strong evidence that there was something there but I still do not believe this would be evidence enough to say you know. I feel many people who tell me they know the lds faith is true because of the spirit, are using the word know instead of the word believe. I say this because of the body language in which they say it and also because of the inconsistencies in the way it is described. Many people who have told me face to face that they know the lds faith is true, to me sound as though they are trying to convince themselves more than me. I wish if someone only believed they would only say it. I mean it is ok to say there is a real feeling and say you know you had a feeling but for one to say they know, I guess I see it very similar to one telling me they know Middle Earth is real because they had a feeling.

It is different for everybody because we have such diverse experiences and communication styles. My sister, for example, can hear the Spirit through heavy guilt or fear. I can't seem to do that. Guilt and fear just confuses me more. I can hear the Spirit through "logic" - those "a-ha!" moments that gives me a wash of peacefulness that I feel as a physical relaxation of my insides... it's hard to explain in words. It's not burning, it's not icy, it's just aaaahhh... peace.

It can be akin to parents communicating differently to their children with different personalities. My 10-year-old, for example, achieves things by praise. If you tell him what a great thing he did! He'll bask in that glow for days. My 8-year-old achieves things by checklists. If you check of the thing off his chart, then he'll feel 10-feet tall. So, I can see how if the Spirit would talk to them the same way by telling them how great they are when they achieve something, I can see how my 10 year old would learn it while my 8-year-old wouldn't.

Unfortunately, due to free agency, we have our own choice as to how we learn, how we react, how we recognize truth. And so, the Spirit has to adjust to our individuality.

But, regardless of how He speaks to us, there is only one truth. The hidden picture in the magic-eye poster is the same. How he guides us to that truth may differ. The poster may be different pictures but when you squint your eyes to look at the hidden picture, everybody sees the same thing.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Do not take this as an insult as it is not meant to be.

The "burning in the bosom" is something I've wondered about quite a bit. I have talked to many others of various christian faiths and they do not use this feeling of the "spirit" as a reason for why they believe or "know" they are right. However, I have asked many lds what this feeling feels like and I have not received a consistent answer. Many lds have described this feeling so very differently to me and many even say it is different for everyone. If this is true, I do not see how one could test if what they are feeling is even the holy ghost or anything other than ones own self feelings. You would have nothing to compare it to if everyone around you is experiencing something so differently and interpreting it to be the spirit. How would you know if what you are feeling is the spirit and not just a feeling? I have felt good feelings while reading scriptures (as well as bad ones). I have also felt good feelings (very similar if not the same to that which I had from anything I ever read in scriptures) while watching a movie, listening to music, reading a book, writing, thinking, being around people with a positive atmosphere and uplifting situations, remembering a loving memory and experiencing pleasant weather outside etc.

I'm not against the possibility of a feeling being a form of communication from a God. Honestly, it's the best answer I've heard as a possibility for communicating with a God. However, if this feeling is indeed real and from a God, I do not believe the vast majority of people who say they have felt it have felt it or at least that they do not understand it. Not well enough to say they know it because of it. I have heard people say God communicates to each person differently. While I feel if there is a God, he may communicate personal things to each person's life but I believe the way in which he would do it would be the same. I do not see how such a feeling could be soo inconsistent. I feel it would have to be consistent for all.

Take for example a magic eye book. This is a book where a person stares at it and sees a 3D picture. If everyone who stared at such a book and saw something different, would this not make you wonder if there was any picture there at all or if what you were seeing or thought you were seeing was what the picture even was of or if there was even a 3D picture there? But lets say everyone around you was seeing a very similar picture. This would be strong evidence that there was something there but I still do not believe this would be evidence enough to say you know. I feel many people who tell me they know the lds faith is true because of the spirit, are using the word know instead of the word believe. I say this because of the body language in which they say it and also because of the inconsistencies in the way it is described. Many people who have told me face to face that they know the lds faith is true, to me sound as though they are trying to convince themselves more than me. I wish if someone only believed they would only say it. I mean it is ok to say there is a real feeling and say you know you had a feeling but for one to say they know, I guess I see it very similar to one telling me they know Middle Earth is real because they had a feeling.

This might be a little hard for you to swallow, but I find that the key is that when you need to identify the means by which you feel the Spirit, when you do finally receive it, you know that it's the Spirit without the shadow of a doubt.

[prisonchaplain]

prison, what is the biblical witness?

The Bible.

[beefche]

My sense is that the "burning in the bosom" or "confirmation of the Holy Spirit" (to use pentecostal/charismatic wording) could CONFIRM a change I already believed to be necessary. However, where the use gets criticized is in the idea that it could trump the biblical witness.

But, how do you know the Bible is true? That it is the word of God? One has to have some witness that the Bible is true before relying on a biblical witness, right? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[Guest]

Is there a certain way to obtain this burning in the bosom? Is it by praying only?

[livy111us]

Justin Martyr wrote in his book Dialogue with Trypho, of his conversion that he was a

philosopher until he met an old man who introduced him to the Hebrew Prophets when “a flame

enkindled his heart” and he found “this philosophy (Christianity) alone to be sure and

profitable.” (Dialogue with Trypho 8, Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:198)

“There are two angels with a man-one of righteousness, and the other of iniquity...The angel of righteousness is gentle and modest, meek and peaceful. When he ascends into your heart, he speaks to you of righteousness, purity, chastity, contentment, and every other righteous deed and glorious virtue. When all of these things come into your heart, know that the angel of righteousness is with you” (Shepard of Hermas, Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:24)

“That most Holy Spirit willingly descends from the Father over our cleansed and blessed bodies [after baptism]...The dove of the Holy Spirit flies to earth, that is, to our flesh as it emerges from the font,...bringing us the peace of God, sent out from the heavens.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:673, Tertullian, W)

[prisonchaplain]

But, how do you know the Bible is true? That it is the word of God? One has to have some witness that the Bible is true before relying on a biblical witness, right? Or am I misunderstanding you?

It would be real easy to get into circular reasoning here. Scripture makes claims about its own validity. Part of that is that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. In other strings we have discussed the phrase "God-breathed" at length. Part of our belief, in Pentecostal circles, is that when we speak Bible verses, there is a power in the words. We often cite the verse, "The Word of God shall not return void." We do not instruct our listeners to pray for a feeling about this power. We simply believe it will happen.

There are, of course, some rational reasons for finding great worth in the Bible's teachings, as well. However, my thought is that most Christians receive a witness of the Spirit about the basic gospel message of salvation. They are then instructed to trust, read, learn and apply the Bible, God's Word, to their lives. The transition from trusting Jesus as Savior to trusting the Bible comes rather naturally. Since we believe that the primary power of the salvation story is in the quoting of scripture verses when presenting it, having a convert take the next step, and trusting the Bible, comes with little questioning. The authority of scripture seems obvious to one who has been converted largely by believing the message that came from that book.

[Dravin]

It would be real easy to get into circular reasoning here. Scripture makes claims about its own validity. Part of that is that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. In other strings we have discussed the phrase "God-breathed" at length. Part of our belief, in Pentecostal circles, is that when we speak Bible verses, there is a power in the words. We often cite the verse, "The Word of God shall not return void." We do not instruct our listeners to pray for a feeling about this power. We simply believe it will happen.

There are, of course, some rational reasons for finding great worth in the Bible's teachings, as well. However, my thought is that most Christians receive a witness of the Spirit about the basic gospel message of salvation. They are then instructed to trust, read, learn and apply the Bible, God's Word, to their lives. The transition from trusting Jesus as Savior to trusting the Bible comes rather naturally. Since we believe that the primary power of the salvation story is in the quoting of scripture verses when presenting it, having a convert take the next step, and trusting the Bible, comes with little questioning. The authority of scripture seems obvious to one who has been converted largely by believing the message that came from that book.

Somewhat like someone raised LDS who doesn't have a definable 'wow' moment but rather a subtler type of constant spiritual confirmation of validity over time? The source is ultimately the spirit testifying just not in a spectacular way. In some ways I think the focus on the wow moment* does a disservice to the validity of the subtler experience and can have a negative effect on some LDS youth who, having grown up in the Church, feel they don't have a testimony unless they have a wow moment. And I think, that extends to some in the Church having a tendency to invalidate mainstream Christian's testimonies of the Bible because a lot of time they lack (or don't communicate) the wow moment, and of course because we think and talk in terms of witness and they think and talk in terms of trust even if ultimately the source is the same.

*It's understandable as wow moments are more dramatic and clearer examples of the spirit's witness. It's why Paul's (or Alma's) conversion are compelling accounts.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Dravin

[prisonchaplain]

Dravin...we also see this sometimes, in that Christians from more mainline denominations will be asked, "So, when did you get saved? When did you ask Jesus into your heart?" They are rather perplexed, because they were raised in church, and never had a moment of "crisis conversion." Rather they grew up in the faith, and cannot remember ever NOT believing or praying.

Their salvation is just as valid, but some of my brothers/sisters will press for a date and time, and offer to pray with them "the sinners' prayer"--just to make sure they are okay. That exercise is beyond absurd, in my book.

[spamlds]

Regarding the "Biblical witness"--

If I approached a person who had never seen a Bible in his life and I gave him the Book of Mormon to read, I would expect him to ask questions about its origins, its translation, and its contents. He would want to know who wrote it, when, and how. If he wants to know of its divine origin, he can't get that information from me or any physical evidence. He has to get it through the revelation of the Spirit. That's how we come to know that anything is true. If we don't have that, we simply have a superstition that is based on hearsay.

If I approached a person who had never seen a Bible and I handed a Bible to him and commanded him to believe it or go to a burning hell forever, what would he rely on to confirm its contents? He might learn of the various codices and texts that were assembled, none of which matched perfectly, to construct the modern Bible hundreds of years after the events it describes took place. He might talk to learned men and archaeologists, etc., but none of them will attest to having been an eyewitness of Jesus' miracles.

If it all comes down to believing a book whose antiquity can be proved, then why not believe in the Vedas or the Bhagavad Gita of the Hindus, which is far older than the Bible? What I'm getting at is that each person has to determine what his threshold for believing is and whether it is consistent in all situations. It makes no sense to believe the Bible and reject the Book of Mormon when the same proofs required to believe the Book of Mormon would undo faith in the Bible if they were to be applied to it.

In the end, it all comes down to the testimony of eleven men who saw Jesus Christ resurrected. The Spirit of God confirms their testimony to the believer. There's no other way to know that Jesus is who they say he was than to get the testimony of the Spirit.

Like the Bible, there are eleven men who saw the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated -- the same number as who saw the resurrected Jesus, interestingly. These men saw, touched, felt, and handled the plates, just like the eleven men who saw, felt, touched, and handled the Lord's resurrected form. We can gain a testimony of the truth of these things also through the Holy Ghost.

1 Corinthians 12:3 says "that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." Now obviously, even an atheist like Bill Maher or Christopher Hitchens is physically capable of saying the words "Jesus is Lord." What this passage means is that the saving knowledge of this fact only comes through the Holy Ghost. A person can read a sacred text or hear the testimony of another and feel the truth of this by the manifestations of the Holy Ghost. It doesn't come from archaeology, DNA, or any other proof.

Millions of people have read the Bible who never, ever come to faith in Christ. Does that make the Bible false? No, of course not. Does it make the Book of Mormon false because millions have read it and not believed? Likewise, no. They failed to learn the truth because they did not have sufficient faith to obtain a witness of the Spirit. That's what these books do. They sort the sheep from the goats, so to speak. They identify who has faith and who does not. Those who truly have faith will come to a knowledge of the gospel by the Holy Spirit. I believe Jonathan Edwards did this, from the sensations he described. I would not be surprised to learn that he has embraced the Restored gospel in the spirit world.

The "Biblical witness" is best summarized in James--"if any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God."

P.S. As anti-Mormons are determined to stop people from praying about the Book of Mormon, I wrote an article for the Examiner a couple of years ago that deals more in-depth with their opposition. Here's the link. When you read their arguments against praying and against the "burning in the bosom," you'll see why this topic is important to understand.

The evil spirit that teaches a person not to pray - National LDS Church | Examiner.com

Edited November 21, 2011 by spamlds

[prisonchaplain]

Regarding the "Biblical witness"--

If he wants to know of its divine origin, he can't get that information from me or any physical evidence. He has to get it through the revelation of the Spirit. That's how we come to know that anything is true. If we don't have that, we simply have a superstition that is based on hearsay.

There is a part of me that agrees with you. Ultimately, it is God who reveals himself and his word to us, through his spirit. After all, we are talking about writings that claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, there are some indications within the text that it is beyond mere human authorship. Prophecies are made, teachings are offered, stories are told that come together in some pretty spectacular ways. So, it's not an either/or scenario. Often, folk will "investigate" the Bible and its claims. The Spirit will woo them. Some will respond and others will not. For most evangelicals, accepting the spiritual inspiration of the Bible comes along with converting to faith in God. There is seldom a second spiritual journey, or prolonged inquiry about the Bible. I've yet to meet someone who says, "Hallelujah! I believe Jesus now...still not so sure about the Bible, though...I'm praying on that."

If I approached a person who had never seen a Bible and I handed a Bible to him and commanded him to believe it or go to a burning hell forever, what would he rely on to confirm its contents?

Usually, a Bible teacher would show a few passages of scripture that speak of the final judgement, the lake of fire, perhaps the story of the rich man and Lazarus, and after explaining it, most would believe it. If it troubled them, they might study the scrptures a bit more. He might read some teachings on the subject, by traditional scholars. However, unless he was so deeply disturbed by the teaching, and so disinclined to believe it, chances are he would accept it.

It makes no sense to believe the Bible and reject the Book of Mormon when the same proofs required to believe the Book of Mormon would undo faith in the Bible if they were to be applied to it.

Except it does not quite work like that. The typical traditional Christian believes that the Bible is inspired of God. Therefore, it is the "home plate" or measure. You bring to him/her the BoM and say, "Here's another testament that is inspired of God." It's not going to get the same favor. In fact, besides look at the BoM itself, the traditionalist is going to compare it to the Bible, to see if it measures up. S/he's going to look at those teachings, such as eternal hell, to see if the BoM contradicts it.

Fair or not, the BoM will carry a burden of proof. The status quo is to reject it. You'll have to convince that the BoM is true. Proposing that the BoM should be assessed on a level playing field with the Bible is a non-starter for most traditionalists. We will not grant it that kind of favor.

Instead, you'll have to simply present it, pray that God woo the investigator, and see who has ears to hear.

[Dravin]

For most evangelicals, accepting the spiritual inspiration of the Bible comes along with converting to faith in God. There is seldom a second spiritual journey, or prolonged inquiry about the Bible. I've yet to meet someone who says, "Hallelujah! I believe Jesus now...still not so sure about the Bible, though...I'm praying on that."

Which makes sense. Imagine someone who learned of Jesus only from the Book of Mormon and comes to believe in him would not have a second journey because when they accepted the teachings about Christ they also accepted that which was teaching about Christ. The LDS perspective on continuing revelation and an open cannon puts a premium on interrogation of sources which is why we stress an active instead of... implicit testimony of scriptures.

[Spartan117]

Fair or not, the BoM will carry a burden of proof. The status quo is to reject it. You'll have to convince that the BoM is true. Proposing that the BoM should be assessed on a level playing field with the Bible is a non-starter for most traditionalists. We will not grant it that kind of favor.

The problem that we usually run into is the 'burden of proof' that gets set for the BoM (and the church) is one that the Bible itself can not meet. Humor me for a minute, PC ...

One of the most popular arguments against the church is that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. The 'false prophecy' that is cited quite often from the detractors is the Independence Temple prophecy.

Doctrine and Covenants 84

2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.

3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.

4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.

That prophecy was given in September 1832. The Saints were expelled from Jackson County in late 1833, before they could make any progress on the temple. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to return to reclaim their lands. After they settled in Nauvoo, Joseph recorded another revelation in January 1841, rescinding the earlier commandment to build the Independence temple ...

Doctrine and Covenants 124

49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God.

If the revelation is meant as a prophecy, the timeline for its fulfillment depends on what Joseph meant by "generation." Typically we consider this to mean the lifespan of those living at the time of the revelation. However, in scriptural language "generation" can indicate a longer period of time.

During his ministry in Jerusalem, Jesus revealed the signs of his second coming, and prophesied that "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" -Matt 24:34

All those who heard his prophecy died nearly 2,000 years ago, so evidently Jesus meant "generation" to mean "age" or some other long period of time. It's possible that Joseph meant the same thing in his revelation about the Independence temple, and therefore the time period for its fulfillment is still open.

Note the double standard of interpretation used against Joseph Smith, for Jesus Christ used the very same terminology. Let's look at what Jesus himself said to the people of his day concerning prophecies of His second coming. Matthew 24:34 quotes Christ as saying, "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Luke 21:32 repeats this prophecy.

What are "all these things," and have they come to pass?

• Many shall come in Christ's name, deceiving many (Matthew 24:5, Luke 21:8)
• Wars and rumours of wars (Matthew 24:6, Luke 21:9-10)
• Famines (Matthew 24:7, Luke 21:11)
• Pestilences (Mathew 24:7, Luke 21:11)
• Earthquakes (Matthew 24:7, Luke 21:11)
• Apostles killed (Matthew 24:9, Luke 21:16)
• Many shall be offended (Matthew 24:10)
• Many shall be betrayed (Matthew 24:10)
• Men will hate one another (Matthew 24:10)
• False prophets will deceive many (Matthew 24:11)
• Iniquity shall abound (Matthew 24:12)
• Love of many shall wax cold (Matthew 24:12)
• Gospel shall be preached in all the world (Matthew 24:14)
• Distress of nations (Luke 21:25)
• Men's hearts will fail them because of fear (Luke 21:11)
• Sun shall be darkened (Matthew 24:29, Luke 21:25)
• Moon shall not give her light (Matthew 24:29, Luke 21:25)
• Stars shall fall from heaven (Matthew 24:29, Luke 21:25)
• Sign of the Son of man shall appear (Matthew 24:30, Luke 21:27)

Some of "these things" occurred during Christ's time period. Some have continued since then. Some have escalated into our time. Some have not occurred yet. So we must ask, since Joseph Smith is charged with false prophecy concerning "this generation," did Jesus Christ utter a false prophecy? According to the critics' rules of interpretation, he did, because "this generation" passed away without "all these things" being fulfilled. So, if Joseph Smith uttered a false prophecy about "this generation" so did Christ.

I have never read anything from anyone who is a critic of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that attacks Jesus Christ, or the Bible, for making a prophecy of "this generation" which has not yet occurred. Yet it has been many centuries longer from the time of Christ until now, than it has been from the 1830's till today.

D&C 84 does not say the "people now living," it says "this generation." The word "generation" has different meanings. According to scripture, the word "generation" can have reference to a time frame, a people, or even a dispensation. Without specific wording which would indicate exactly what the word "generation" means, you can't accuse Joseph Smith of a false prophecy, while accepting Christ's prophecy when both use it in a general form.

I definitely took a lot of liberty with what you said to tie it into this, I apologize for that. But you talk about the burden of proof placed on the BoM, and in most instances the Bible can't make it's case under the conditions set for the BoM. Neither can any "true Christian" church validate their legitimacy under the conditions that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has to.

Instead, you'll have to simply present it, pray that God woo the investigator, and see who has ears to hear.

That's not the only stumbling block for traditionalists. The idea that there are Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ walking around right now is usually met with serious skepticism. You start telling people that there is a living breathing Prophet on the earth and people lose their minds. The Biblical account of Prophets and Apostles is one thing, but the idea that God wants to communicate with people in modern times is blasphemy.